1. 2015-2016 Killingly Professional Learning & Evaluation Program 1

2. Evaluation Plan Committee Members 2 Lorie Nordman Jean Hemmig Meredith Crabtree Danielle Orbegozo Steve Wheeler Holly Bunning Joyce Owen Nicola Able Paul Dipadua Maryann McGillivray Joan Gardner Sara Schmidt Sharon Ternowchek Lisa Vance Janine Paige Michael Vose Jacqueline Brooks Lydia Miudo Steve Rioux *Contributions by EASTCONN – Jim Huggins/Scott Nierendof/Amy Drowne

3. Professional Learning and Support System for evaluation-based professional learning System for individual teacher improvement and remediation Career growth and development opportunities for teachers 3

4. Teacher/Ed. Specialist Evaluation Components 45 % - Student Outcomes and Achievement 40% - Observation of Teacher Performance and Practice 5% - Whole School Student Learning 10% - Parent Feedback 4

5. Teacher/Ed. Specialist Evaluation Components 5

6. Evaluation Process The annual evaluation process for a teacher shall at least include, but not be limited to, the following steps, in order: 1. Orientation by Sept 15 2. Goal-setting Conference October 15 3. Observations of practice by Nov 30, Jan 31, & May 15 4. Mid-year Check-ins by February 28 5. End-of-year Summative Review by Last Day of School 6. Rating revision Aug 15 6

7. Evaluation Summative Rating Annual summative evaluations aligned to one of four performance evaluation designators Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard 7

8. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 8

9. Outcome Rating 9

10. 45% Student Outcomes and Achievement 2 SMART Goals developed through mutual agreement  Take into account the academic track record and overall needs and strengths of students that teacher is teaching  Align with school, district and state student achievement objectives  Account for student learning needs based on relevant baseline data  Be fair, valid, reliable and useful to the greatest extent possible 10

11. 45% Student Outcomes and Achievement SMART Goals For the 2015-2016 academic year, the required use of state test data is suspended. Shall not be determined by a single, isolated test score, but shall be determined through the comparison of data across assessments administered over time. Benchmark assessments of student achievement of school-wide Expectations for Student Learning, measured by analytic rubrics Student portfolios of work in content areas, collected over time and reviewed annually Educational specialist may utilize a Learning Portfolios as a SMART goal  Requires a generalized goal for student achievement or access to learning  Indicators of success may rely on qualitative or quantitative data 11

12. SMART Goal Example 12 4 th grade students will increase the average STAR Math scale score from 440 to 490 by the end of the 15-16 school year. DataBaseline Mid- Year Year- End TargetRating SMART GOAL #1 440 475496 490 ???

13. SMART Goal Example 13 4 th grade students will increase the average STAR Math scale score from 440 to 490 by the end of the 15-16 school year. Exceeded (4) All or most students met or substantially exceeded the target(s). Met (3) Most students met the target(s) contained in the indicator within a few points on either side of the target(s) Partially Met (2) Many students met the target(s), but a notable percentage missed the target by more than a few points. However, taken as a whole, significant progress towards the goal was made. Did Not Meet (1) A few students met the target(s) but a substantial percentage of students did not. Little progress toward the goal was made

14. SMART Goal Example 14 4 th grade students will increase the average STAR Math scale score from 440 to 490 by the end of the 15-16 school year. Exceed ed (4) All or most students met or substantially exceeded the target(s). MORE THAN 550 Met (3) Most students met the target(s) contained in the indicator within a few points on either side of the target(s) 490-549 Partiall y Met (2) Many students met the target(s), but a notable percentage missed the target by more than a few points. However, taken as a whole, significant progress towards the goal was made. 480-489 Did Not Meet (1) A few students met the target(s) but a substantial percentage of students did not. Little progress toward the goal was made LESS THAN 440

15. SMART Goal #1 Example 15 9 th grade students will increase the average STAR Math scale score from 740 to 790 by the end of the 14- 15 school year. Exceeded (4) All or most students met or substantially exceeded the target(s). Met (3) Most students met the target(s) contained in the indicator within a few points on either side of the target(s) Partially Met (2) Many students met the target(s), but a notable percentage missed the target by more than a few points. However, taken as a whole, significant progress towards the goal was made. Did Not Meet (1) A few students met the target(s) but a substantial percentage of students did not. Little progress toward the goal was made

16. SMART Goal #1 Example 16 9 th grade students will increase the average STAR Math scale score from 740 to 790 by the end of the 15- 16 school year. Exceeded (4) 850 Met (3) 790-849 Partially Met (2) 741-789 Did Not Meet (1) less than 740

17. SMART Goal Example 17

18. STAR MATH Example 18

19. SMART Goal #2 Example 19 85% of students will produce a research-based argument in favor of a particular energy source that meets at least 8 of the 10 criteria on the teacher developed rubric for the mock panel discussion performance task in the spring of the academic year. DataBaseline Mid- Year Year- End TargetRating SMART GOAL #1 42% 75%80% 85% ???

20. SMART Goal #1 Example 20 85% of students will produce a research-based argument in favor of a particular energy source that meets at least 8 of the 10 criteria on the teacher developed rubric for the mock panel discussion performance task in the spring of the academic year. Exceeded (4) Met (3) Partially Met (2) Did Not Meet (1)

21. Student Outcome and Achievement (45%) 21

22. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 22

23. 5% Whole School Indicators The rating shall be determined by the Principal’s rating on his or her Student Learning Indicators (the combination of the 2 Smart Goals) Certified staff will be asked to articulate in writing how they will, through their instructional practice, contribute to the achievement of the Whole School Learning Indicator. EACH TEACHER WILL RECEIVE A RATING IN ONE OF FOUR LEVELS. Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard 23

24. Teacher Practice Rating 24

25. Outcome Rating Matrix (50%) 23

26. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 26

27. Performance & Practice Rating 25

28. 40% Teacher Performance and Practice CCT Rubric for Effective Teaching 2014 Domain 1 – Classroom Environment, Student Engagement and Commitment to Learning Domain 2 – Planning for Active Learning Domain 3 – Instruction for Active Learning Domain 4 – Professional Responsibilities and Teacher Leadership ** Ed Specialist Rubric has been revised and approved by CDSE – PD and Eval Committee will review it 28

29. 40% Teacher Performance and Practice Observations Observation Process shall:  Facilitate effective means for multiple in-class visits  Provide constructive oral and written feedback  Combination of formal, informal, announced and unannounced observation and reviews of practice  May include pre/post conferences  Provide for training and on-going calibration of evaluators 29

30. Observation Cycles 30 Group A: Three Formal - Less than two years experience; or - Summative rating below Proficient Group B: One Formal & Two Informal - More than two years experience; and - No formal observation in previous two years Group C: Three Informal - More than two years experience; and - Formal observation in previous two years; and - Summative rating Proficient and Above All Teachers – At least one Review of Practice

31. Terms 31 Formal Observation: A formal observation will be defined as at least a 45- minute observation. Schools with periods that are longer than forty-five minutes shall ensure that at least one formal observation will consume an entire teaching period as applicable. Formal observations will include a pre-observation conference, observation, post-observation conference (verbal feedback), and written feedback. One pre-observation conference may be omitted (as mutually agreed upon). Formal observation guidelines for educational specialist may be modified.

32. Terms 32 Informal Observation: An informal observation will be defined as at least a 20-minute in-class observation. Informal observation do not requires a pre-observation conference. Either observer or observee may request a post-observation conference, however it is not mandated. Each informal observation must have written feedback. In-formal observation guidelines for educational specialist may be modified to reflect the parameters of the position.

33. Terms 33 Written Feedback:  Written feedback must have, at minimum, a brief synapsis of the observation, strengths, and recommendations.

34. Terms 34 Review of Practice: Examples of non-classroom observations or reviews of practice include but are not limited to:  Discussion and review of lesson planning and teaching/student artifacts (Domain II)  Discussions relating to data team meetings (Domain IV)  Discussions relating to coaching/mentoring other teachers (Domain IV) Up to four artifacts when conducting a review of practice in Domain II or IV Artifacts to be submitted in advance (advance to be determined by evaluator) A Review of Practice will be rated at the indicator level, but look at artifacts at the attribute level (professional judgment) The mid-year conference is in essence a review of practice, however only formative feedback will be provided Additional review of practices can be added as needed  Examples of non-classroom observations or reviews of practice include but are not limited to: observations of data team meetings, observations of coaching/mentoring other teachers, review of lesson plans, other teaching artifacts, PPT meetings, etc.

35. 40% Teacher Performance and Practice Teacher practice goal set to guide professional learning and improvements in practice Performance and practice evaluated using:  Teachers: CCT Instrument 2014 (4 Domains)  Education Specialist: CCT-SESS (4 Domains) Sources of Data:  Conferences  In-class observations – Feedback at the Indicator Level  Non-classroom reviews of practice  Artifacts and other evidence 35

36. 40% Teacher Performance and Practice All ratings made at the Domain Level RatingCriteria ExemplaryMinimum of 3 exemplary ratings and no ratings below proficient ProficientMinimum of 3 proficient ratings and no rating below standard DevelopingMinimum of 2 proficient ratings and not more than one rating below standard Below StandardLess than two proficient ratings at the domain level or two or more ratings at the domain level below standard 36

37. 10% Parent Feedback Annual Parent Survey  Parent responses anonymous  Surveys administered either online or paper  Develop one school-wide goal based on analysis of survey results - developed by the principal & school improvement team  Teachers identify strategies they will implement to achieve the goal  Teacher and administrator must identify criteria for rating in this category (i.e., 3 of 4 strategies meet for Proficiency EACH TEACHER WILL RECEIVE A RATING IN ONE OF FOUR LEVELS. Exemplary Proficient Developing Below Standard 37

38. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 38

39. Teacher Practice Rating 39

40. Teacher Practice Rating Matrix 40

41. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 41

42. Summative Rating 39

43. Summative Rating 40

44. Illustration of Matrix to Final Rating 41

45. EOY TEVAL Ratings by Indicator

46. EOY TEVAL Ratings by Domain

47. EOY TEVAL Ratings by Category

48. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 48 SMART Goal #1 SMART Goal #2 Exemplary3 exemplary ratings and no ratings below proficient Proficient3 proficient ratings and no rating below standard Developing2 proficient ratings and not more than one rating below standard Below StandardLess than 2 proficient ratings or 2 or more ratings at below standard

49. Professional Assistance and Support System (PASS) 42

50. Effective & Ineffective 50 Teacher effectiveness will be based upon a pattern of summative teacher ratings collected over time. In order to be deemed effective, teachers will need to have a summative rating of Proficient or Exemplary. Teachers are required to be effective within two years of being evaluated using this program. Teachers who are not deemed effective by this criteria will be deemed ineffective. Any teacher having a summative rating of Developing or Below Standard after one year of being evaluated with this program may be placed on an individual improvement plan. Professional Assistance and Support System, or PASS

51. PASS 51 The plan must include the following components:  Areas of Improvement  Rationale for Areas of Improvement  Domain: List domain rated “developing” or “below standard.”  Indicators for Effective Teaching  Improvement Strategies to be Implemented  Tasks to Complete: Specific tasks the Teacher will complete that will improve the domain.  Support and Resources: List of supports and resources the Teacher can use to improve, e.g. professional learning opportunities, peer observation, colleague mentor, books, etc.  Indicators of Progress: How the teacher will show progress towards proficient/exemplary in identified domain(s) through observations, data, evidence, etc.

52. PASS Improvement and Remediation Plan 52 The evaluator(s) will help the teacher outline specific goals and objectives with timelines, resources, and evaluative criteria. Consistent supervision and, at minimum, a weekly observation followed by timely feedback, will be provided by the evaluator(s). This intervention will operate for a period of time that the evaluator determines to be appropriate, but will normally conclude within 45 school days. If the teacher demonstrates that he/she is Effective or better, the evaluator will designate placement of that teacher to a normal plan phase. Effective shall be specifically defined as having Proficient ratings at the indicator level of the CCT Instrument for a minimum of 80% of all formal and informal observations during the Improvement and Remediation phase.

53. PASS Intensive Remediation Plan 53 The PASS Intensive Remediation Plan is the final attempt to provide the help necessary to meet the requirements of the position. The teacher, evaluator, and another appropriate administrator will develop a plan that includes specific goals, timelines, resources, and evaluative criteria. The teacher may choose to include their bargaining representative. At the conclusion of this phase, the evaluator will make a recommendation as to whether the intensive supervision will be terminated or extended. If the teacher demonstrates that he/she is Effective (as defined above) or better, the evaluator will designate placement of that teacher to the normal plan phase. If the teacher’s performance is below Effective, the evaluator will recommend termination of that teacher’s employment to the superintendent.

54. PASS Timeline 54 Normal Phase - One Year PASS – One Year PASS Improvement and Remediation Plan (45 Days) PASS Intensive Remediation Plan (45 Days)

55. Resolution of Differences 48

56. Resolution of Differences 56 Should a teacher disagree with the evaluator’s assessment and feedback, the parties are encouraged to discuss these differences and seek common understanding of the issues. Observation and evaluation reports are not subject to the grievance procedure. In the event that the teacher and evaluator are unable to resolve their differences, they can submit the matter to the superintendent for review and decision. Any such matters will be handled as expeditiously as possible, and in no instance will a decision exceed thirty (30) school days.

57. Overview 50

58. 45% Student Growth and Development 5% Whole-School Student Learning Indicators or Student Feedback Outcome Rating 50% 40% Observations of Performance & Practice 10% Peer or Parent Feedback Practice Rating 50% Teacher Final Summative Rating 5% Teacher Effectiveness outcomes 45% Multiple Student Learning Indicators Outcome Rating 50% 40% Observations of Performance & Practice 10% Stakeholder Feedback Practice Rating 50% Administrator Final Summative Rating These percentages are derived from the same set of data These percentages may be derived from the same set of data Survey data gathered from the same stakeholder groups should be gathered via a single survey, when possible 58

59. Illustration of Steps to Final Rating Student Outcomes and Achievement (45%) Whole-school Student Learning (5%) Performance and Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Practice Rating (50%) Outcome Rating (50%) The matrix (on the next slide) is used in order to get a Final Rating (100%) (Reviewed when outcomes and practice are discrepant) 59

60. Questions Observation Cycles Goal Setting Student Outcome Data (45%) Whole-School Goal (5%) Teacher Practice (40%) Parent Feedback (10%) Summative Rating PASS 60